Compare and contrast former President Bush's claim that Iraq was a threat to world peace with David Koehler's position on the issue. Which claims are valid? Which are based on fallacious reasoning (note instances)? Who has the stronger argument? Why?
Q9 (Adrienne art)
Think about the various ways in which art exists in your daily life, identifying purposes and functions from the readings to elaborate on the necessity of art in your existence.
Then, using information from the reading to support your ideas, discuss how these works are comparable in purpose or function to those that exist in your daily life.
Sample Answer
This query contains two distinct and unrelated questions, one about political rhetoric and another about the purpose of art in daily life. I will address each question separately.
Former President Bush's and David Koehler's Arguments on Iraq
George W. Bush's argument for invading Iraq was primarily based on the claim that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and had ties to al-Qaeda, making it an imminent threat to the United States and global peace. This position was presented to justify a preemptive war.
David Koehler, an American academic and author, presented a contrasting view. He, along with many others who opposed the war, argued that the evidence for WMDs was circumstantial and unverified. They contended that the real motivations for the war were likely geopolitical, such as securing control over oil resources or strengthening U.S. influence in the Middle East, rather than an immediate threat to world peace. Koehler's position was that the claims were part of a political campaign to justify an invasion, not an accurate assessment of the threat